Thomas: On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:39 PM Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: [...] > As an unintended side effect this distinction causes a major headache for > license compliance, license scanners and the ongoing effort to clean up the > license mess of the kernel.
Glad to be of service and sorry for having helped a bit surface these! > > Therefore remove the well meant, but ill defined, distinction between "GPL" > and "GPL v2" and document that: > > - "GPL" and "GPL v2" both express that the module is licensed under GPLv2 > (without a distinction of 'only' and 'or later') and is therefore kernel > license compliant. > > - None of the MODULE_LICENSE strings can be used for expressing or > determining the exact license > > - Their sole purpose is to decide whether the module is free software or > not. > > Add a MODULE_LICENSE subsection to the license rule documentation as well. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> Thank you ++ for documenting all this : this is a small change but a big step towards licensing clarity! Great that you found the commit that introduced this too. Feel free to add this if you want: Acked-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombreda...@nexb.com> -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne
